POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

things appear to be tilting toward (or past) ugly here gentlemen, so if i may interject - omega is a respected and long time member here, as are almost all you who disagree with him on this issue of global warming. so lets please stick to arguing facts and evidence as opposed to guessing what each others intentions and or personal shortcomings might or might not be. lets tone it down and stop being insulting, please. you are all better than that, please show it. save the snide tones for jfux and johnny come latelies but treat fellow members of long standing with proper respect.

or whatever - lol. eat each other alive. just dont harm the women and children...

things appear to be tilting toward (or past) ugly here gentlemen, so if i may interject - omega is a respected and long time member here, as are almost all you who disagree with him on this issue of global warming. so lets please stick to arguing facts and evidence as opposed to guessing what each others intentions and or personal shortcomings might or might not be. lets tone it down and stop being insulting, please. you are all better than that, please show it. save the snide tones for jfux and johnny come latelies but treat fellow members of long standing with proper respect.

or whatever - lol. eat each other alive. just dont harm the women and children...

There was a post of your some while back where you went on about solar output at the start and made many erroneous statements. Firefighting the many here as I am I am afraid that my health went down before I could reply and then the thread vanished into the background. I have not forgotten it and had a reply worked out in thought. Time is pressing on me again now but I'll be back.

How far off was he? You're maybe so time pressed Omega you haven't even read my original post: link to the post where I wrote the actual numbers quite clearly.

Just little about the solar activity. We have long time dispute about this with my friend from BNL who is Hansen's friend and has a very simmilar attitude to the whole issue as you have. (It doesn't mean we aren't friends anymore.) Now it looks like the sun activity reality is still off lower the latest predictions. From the recent example of SC24 prediction it looks like the NASA is quite completely unable to predict next solar cycle, it looks like their solar model doesn't work at all, and they've had arbitrarily changing their prediction from SC24 maximum at 140 spots in 2010-2011 made in 2006 many times to the latest at half of it in 2013-2014. But the reality looks even gloomier. It quite clearly now looks like SC24 would be at average 50-60 spots maximum in 2014-2015 which means so lower PSI in the important spectres that the whole effect of the anthropogenic CO2 on global temperatures not just would be erased but the cooling is very likely over next at least 15 years. (And note even Bilderberg was already having talks about it this year in Sitges according to leaked agenda). We also now know thank's to the Czech researcher Vit Kremlik the IPCC hasn't any renowned solar scientist on the board at all, not one. So the climatology of the CAGW is clearly unable to work with the real solar science at all and if there are some predictions in this regard they're clearly off reality, prefering their black-box models. Hopefully it will change and somebody would finally start to pay attention to Niroma RIP (who exactly predicted the end of the SC23), Archibald, Svaalgaard etc. Because it is mainly a political problem - We don't know really, how serious the CAGW issue is, I'm quite skeptical about it, but more due to lack of decisive, credible information and the suspicious megalomaniac global socialist agenda around it. If indeed the climate is highly sensitive to the CO2 (which I seriously doubt from available mesurements, but I'm not completely convinced about the opposite), but the solar activity would continue to decline as we see predicted by the people who were unlike the official agencies right about the SC23 end, then the next period of low solar activity can completely mask the CAGW effect and when the solar activity would eventually come back to the levels of the last half of the century (which can be even two, three SC's from now), there could be too late to mitigate CO2 to stop the runoff. On the other hand it can give us needed time to adaptation, mainly the major restructuralization in the energetics needed to booth develop the realy sustainable energy sources (I'm of the simmilar opinion in this as Hansen - 4th generation nuclear R&D is almost only option due to developing population and technology use in the 3rd world and my opinion from the praxis is it would be developed only if there would be deregulation not more regulation applied) which we need anyway and curb the carbon energetics which is unsustainable, polluting, more and more expensive anyway and having unexpected potentially fatal externalities as we clearly see now in the GoM. But politically the real cooling due to the very low solar activity very likely comming which is so scandalously disregarded and downplayed by IPCC and leading climatologists can considerably shaken the public belief in the climatology as a whole and the proposed policies, even some of them are vital ones without regards to if there is CAGW or not could not win the public support. That's why I consider the activist overstatements from the side of the ardent warmistas be so dangerous if one considers the real social and political dynamics and the possible direst consequences.

This is old resurrected stuff probably to take your eyes off the Monckton Meltdown and also the undeniable facts of cryosphere and bio responses to a warming globe. Not to mention many other headline hitting events as greater imbalances of heat energy across the globe cause ext ream weather events.

Yes there is a difference between weather and climate, just as there is between global warming and climate change, but the two are linked.

Marc Morano has been sounding this particular drumbeat for awhile now:

I am reneging. This is not a time for sympathy.Omega has no problem responding and defending himself. This "warming" thing is a scam, A BIG TIME scam and I cannot let anyone post this crap unhindered. No one is "picking" on Omega. We are simply calling attention to the FACT that he adheres to several theories that MOST of of us believe to be scams, such as;

1. Global warming2. Peak Oil3. Biotic oil4. Chemtrails are contrails

If a newbie were posting all these 'theories' on this site we would be showing him the door, but because Omega (a typical spy handle) has been here since day one, he gets a pass? I'm sorry, no way he gets a pass.

q - i never said give up or abandon the debate, i said do it without insults and personal attacks. but it was only a recommendation, not a directive or command. do as you see fit - im sure omega can handle it as well as he can dish it, but i feel the thread itself will suffer as it deteriorates into a pissing match instead of an informative source for undecideds (like myself) who dont normally follow this sort of information and who arent yet sure what the facts nor their implications are.

It would help your arguments greatly if you would only read, with an honestly open mind, the information behind the numerous links that I have posted now spread across many threads since this debate kicked off here.

Yes, I do give a little credit to the Planet itself but little to nothing to humans.

Then you have not studied the science, or read fully any of my posts - go look some up on other threads and follow some of the links. And look out especially for the various books that I have cited which mostly are by accredited researchers in the field such as Archer, Broecker, Burroughs.

The current warming trend cannot be the sun, why?

Because all the known positive solar temperature forcing factors such as Earth orbital cycles and rotation eccentricities (Milankovitch) and solar activity are near their minimum. You will discover this by searching out the links and books I mention above.

q - i never said give up or abandon the debate, i said do it without insults and personal attacks. but it was only a recommendation, not a directive or command. do as you see fit - im sure omega can handle it as well as he can dish it, but i feel the thread itself will suffer as it deteriorates into a pissing match instead of an informative source for undecideds (like myself) who dont normally follow this sort of information and who arent yet sure what the facts nor their implications are.

We're cool, Paranoia. That's the problem with the written word - we don't always have the time to convey exactly how we feel and it's too easy to be misunderstood. Of course, we'll keep it civil.

Only if you ignore all the links that I have provided in numerous posts across many threads here.

Ignorance is excusable but willful ignorance is not.

Also, of course, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. I have explained the nature of 'facts' elsewhere already.

It would seem a lot of scientists dispute your "facts" Omega. There is hardly a concensus on global warming, peak oil and "biotic oil". That and the fact that probably 90% "truthers" understand the chemtrail phenomenon - something that escapes you.

If you merely accepted that FACT that there is no scientific concensus on "warming" this debate would dead end right here, right now.

How far off was he? You're maybe so time pressed Omega you haven't even read my original post: link to the post where I wrote the actual numbers quite clearly.

Did I indicate that you did not? No.

That is a classic argument shift.

I was trying to tease out of you by how much you thought Schneider was wrong.

QUOTE

Almost everything in this science of CAGW is too overstated - in 1979 Stephen Schneider was telling us the CO2 will rise +20% at the end of century and in middle of 21st century "will double". In fact now we have 2010 and CO2 have risen 13.7% since 1979, 5.5% since 2000. So he overstated the figure - 2.4 times than actually was the reality. It reminds me the fishermen who show me using their hands how big the fish they caught was to win attention. It is more like an activism than a serious science...

By my reckoning, and using an average of the annual difference in yearly CO2 since 1999 I can extrapolate to 2050 and get a figure of 463.75 ppm atmospheric CO2 which is a 37.7 per cent increase.

However, and Schneider was out not because he was deliberately exaggerating (unlike your opening comment highlighted in red above) but because he was basing the trend on an ever increasing use of fossil fuel and in particular coal as the Asian economies took off. What he did not allow for was fluctuations in economic activity and you should blame the economists for that.

Whatever, note that the CO2 level rise between 1997 and 1998 was 3.03 ppm. Using that number to extrapolate to 2050 we get an increase of 54.2 per cent. And there is no guarantee that annual increases won't rise above 3 ppm.

Forecasting the future is not easy but the above levels of increase will ensure that the atmosphere responds in ways that will be most unwelcome.

Throw in all the solar fudge factors you like, and Svensmark is off by miles (I leave you to research that one), you cannot dispute the basic science of CO2 and its interaction with certain wavelengths and how in turn this causes climatic responses.

You need to look at the bigger picture, weigh up all the factors that I have mentioned and the only theory that fits all known data is that human induced global warming is real:

I am reneging. This is not a time for sympathy.Omega has no problem responding and defending himself. This "warming" thing is a scam, A BIG TIME scam and I cannot let anyone post this crap unhindered. No one is "picking" on Omega. We are simply calling attention to the FACT that he adheres to several theories that MOST of of us believe to be scams, such as;

1. Global warming2. Peak Oil3. Biotic oil4. Chemtrails are contrails

If a newbie were posting all these 'theories' on this site we would be showing him the door, but because Omega (a typical spy handle) has been here since day one, he gets a pass? I'm sorry, no way he gets a pass.

I say, onward! Let the fight begin, or in this case, continue!

But you never, ever provide cogent arguments to back up your statements.

Where Milankovitch missed the boat is not accounting for the influence on or effect a change brought by neighborhood “Supernovae” within the 12LY range.

These massive waves of distortion can cause the axial tilt to change up to an additional 25 degrees, as one did 13,000 years ago.

The Sun is only one of many aspects of Space which changes by the second. It has been stated that portions of the Canis Major Dwarf galaxy is being swallowed by the Milky Way. Change because of change!